National Insurance Co Ltd vs B N Shivarajappa S/O Late … on 12 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs B N Shivarajappa S/O Late … on 12 November, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And N.Ananda


"ms HONBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE N.K.PAT1L..__"4~   



M.F.A. No.6152/2e69._E§'*{MDVe'V'D}  -. «. "  A A


National Insurance Co. :Ltd.

#9, Lingaraju Complex   _ 1 . V

Gandhi Bazaar, Basavanagudi  ._ u _
Bangaloremél, now represented by its  1-. 
Regional Manager  _' A' '~ _  - 
National insuifareét? Co_'«Lt<3-   ,  

144, M_.G.-Road'; 'I:'3,¥igfi10'I§?'56'O'00l.  Appeilant

{By Sriyuetizs AN & S.Maheshwara, Advocates}

Ij1I,I;_?f:" »

'V  1.,  I':§u.eN.T$jf1iya1*ajappa

A  _ 6. Late'-.Nanjeg0Wda
 D NOW_a§§ed*'about 57 years

2. S_i*n"t,ei:akshmamma
,. 0. B.N.ShiVaraj appa
New aged about 53 years

D/0. Late Dharmegowda
Now aged about 12 years

4. Revanth
D/o. Late Dharmegowda

Now aged about 5 years

Respondents 3 81 4 herein since minors, . 
rep. by their natural guardian/ grand father 
the 151 respondent herein.  "

All are r/0. Thotagere, R.Go11ahaHi   j; 
Dasanapura Hobli '  '
Bangalore North--562 123.

5. R.Srinivasa

S/ o. Ran1achandr_a

Age: Major V j    _ 

R/ a: No.758, 8H1 Mair1.,.Kan{1a}a Nagara,_

Bangalore-560 079. '~ _  1   Respondents
(By Sri G:B'.'Na'ndis'h ; --.Gowda,f_"--.._AéVocate for Sri

R.B.Sadasiva_ppa.5;:Advoeate-__for__«  R.'2eServed; R3 & R4,
minors rep: by _.I7<}_: R5.--seeg,;ee- ofprnotzice is dispensed with)
Ir;i'e%"eppefa1 re';4fi1e&»..j}m_de§:""eect1on 173(1) of MV Act,
againgfvvghe'judgrnent  dated 20.10.2005, passed
in MVC N0,§315/20914;  file of the emu Judge [Sr.Dn.}
& Member.  Kunigal, awarding compensation

 '  drntgfsrest at 65/2)' 'per'annum from the date of petition.

  coming on for hearing this day, N.
ANANDAr t=_1',;ae11x»ered the following:


The Insurance Company has filed this
aside the impugned award, inter alia
claimants have failed to prove that-accidentin’_:vd_u’es_tilovnl–ihadg
occurred due to rash and
insured Vehicle viz autofickshauf’~~bearing._ it
5478. The learned Counsel for-Insurance Conipanyiihas also
contended that by Tribunal is


2. We, __i!’V1.jt«lv.llfitislhnaswamy, learned

Counselmforcr and Sr: G.B.Nandish

Gowda, ll–ea1’ned –Coui_1~sei« .f_o’1’». clairnant.

3. Sri “‘A’l_N;i(rishnaswamy, learned Counsel for

Cljonipany would submit that evidence adduced by

clearly establish that at the time of

accident; ‘t:l.ain1ant was travelling in autorickshaw bearing

:”R.egn.l\lo.KA–02~B~5478 and a lorry, whose registration

_l’nVumbl’er is not knowri dashed against autorickshaw. After

ll irnrestigation, police have submitted ‘C’-report, stating that

offending vehicle could not be traced. In the circumstances,

the Tribunal is not justified in fastening liability a.Vo’nulthe

insured and insurer of autorickshaw inVolxé9ed”‘ .


4. The learned Counsel for lnsutfancel’C.on1pan§i”haVs’.2

relied on the judgments of the..vr:”S’u.Vpreniea._Co–ui~t. in it

(1977) 2 sea page sssun the”ca’se’of. Minu”i’3.l\/lehta and

another Vs. Balkrishnaa’ and another]
and AIR 2007 sc:”1509 {ih”trué; Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd. Vs.  ifs 

5'.     claimants would submit

that as as deceas;e~dll’i’s.coneemed, it is a case of composite

negligence. l”lThe1’efore.A”thle*°claimants could proceed against

..v’one.’:}_df the joint t.ort«feasoIs. even if the name of other tort»

V’ lfeasor known.

V l..lV:£?V£1l’T1€(i Counsel for claimants has placed

reliancellon F ull Bench judgment of this Court, reported in

KARNATAKA 149 [in the case of Karnataka State

i ;

‘J ‘
‘ “s r

Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and etc. Vs. Arun
alias Aravind and etc.).

In the case on hand, evidence of first inforngiant. of

accident nameiy PW3–K.G.Lakshmana, would_:reveal.’__:’

accident took place due to contributory negligence’ <:l_ri-Jge1'* C

of lorry and driver of autorickshawfiherefore, it7is._:n'otia case'

Where claimants have not at ailaddticeld'..evident:e:in tproof

negligence. In the circumstancesdaxzhat has the
Supreme Court in the aforestated is lnotlapplicable

to the case on hand.

7;”rii’ ardecisiidfinl relported ifi’AtR 2004 KARNATAKA 149
{in the caseof KarnV.ataka_:lVS.tai;e Road Transport Corporation,

Bangalore and ‘etc.V alias Aravind and etc.}, the Full

‘~ v:ti”;i_s Cotirtflias he1d:–

_ next point to be considered is
and remedy of the joint tort-

feas’orA.fvvho satisfied the award. It is clear from
provisions of section 175 of the Act that

it «where claims Tribunal has been established for

“any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction

adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. Section 168 _

of the Act. enables the Tribunai to make an7l._

award determining the amount of compensation’ *

which appears to it to be just and to specify

erson or yersons to whom com ensa.tion–.s’haH.. ‘

be paid and in making the aavardl

shall specify the amount which_sl3–all bellpaid .by it

the insu.i’e.:.’ or owner ‘or'”d_river”vof thelvehilcie…

involved in the accidentlli’i’orl”oy allerilanylgof
them, as the case~.1jraayri5e. 174lHo’f the
Act provides that4l’vvhere_gVany fllaemAoun.t is due
from any ilersonvpunder an ciajms
Tribunal” f’1″i’.’3fi=7’~§t’-.’OI1 “ania’ppiicati’on.made to it by
person” amount, issue a
certigficate ‘ iorg_the.,_ to the Collector and
the C{illA7€l{‘,t{);jV shallévjproceed to recover the same
saunealAimaiinlerd..–as an arrears of land

revenue. in our finding that the

gggclainaant proceed against either or both of
joint i(‘)2*tl~ileasvors where both the joint tortw
parties, if the claimant proceeds
one of the joint tort-feasors, one

joint’ ielrtv~leaso:* having satisfied the award, can

proceed in recover the amount held to be

it llfipayable by the other tort–feasto:r under the

“same award in accordance with section 174 of

the Act. I’ioweve:’, where the claimant has filed a

3″»? u/::&£’~~”W”

» c

petition against one of the joint tort–feasors, to
do which he is entitled to, the joint tort–feasor is
bound to satisfy the award and negligence of
the other tort-feasors. cannot be a defence to

reduce compensation payable to the claimanptppb

So far as the claimant is concerned, his

cannot be defeated or reduced due to i’]OvIl,’:’

impleadiilg of other t9Fl§*feasor;””
appoitionment of
blarneworthiness between tortfeasors it
would arise oniy whenlilboth are”partiesi».Vto”:.et’he…
petition. If other joint tortifeasor isinotiltniadeg a
party. it is always it the irnpleaded
respondents to Viignpleabled “joint tort-
feasors so i’§–}g1’€ thei’r”i’especti_Ve blvarnielworthiness

can be ‘a§3pg3i9tio11ed«._so_ as to enable them to
clairn. cc)-1’1t.i’ib’tttio.n:””.-f1t:)m the other if the

clairharit. <:hr.)osese.to proceed to recover the

ppgjiarnotint "zaxyarded' from one of them only. It is

'weii settlecl in the absence of both the joint

it would not be appropriate to

" –._3a}5po;~.i;io'n'neggiigence or biameworthiness as the

said .§'i.ndi.§:g would not be binding on the other

jovinit to1'i'~i'easor, who is not a party to the

it proceedirigs and Courts and Tribunals should

not pass _§i.;(.igment or order, which cannot be

executed. However, the only joint tort-feasor,

W? E 'W 3

who is made a party to the petition and
satisfied the award cannot be said to be withoutig

any remedv. It is open to him to

contribution from the other joint tort–fee_..sor is

the extent of his blamewotthiness. _–'i'E1e:.::lFiiil.:
Bench in Ganesh's case (ILEQ Karit
has st1ggesi'ed as follows:– _l t' . . __
"xxxx XXXX cases where

the joint t"ort.«i"easors are netjmade aspiartiesvvito
the procecciings, "such .ofmtli.e; joint tort–Vf'easor
i.e., drivez'. ownerélanci the Vehicle,
who saiiisiic;–as the awaifcig the same
proceedi;iig::;'g;.gVg ..ci§'iver, owner
and "oi: Vehicle, which has
can_sed"».Vg'Vi.i'1;e.;:__ aceide:nt" «ovnwvfaccount of the
r.ieglige1n{{e;:-7..of the -dntirer of the said Vehicle. This
proceciure. :ll'§~.V Vfirzti-:VVeZ'r"E;:,:' is permissible in proper

undei'stai;i'lii;.g' Cf "Se_e'ti0n 110-17 of the Act, and

git _woulcE" ..;_-_1lso subserve the Very object of

5…kcharptler-VII} oi””‘the Act which intends to give

–i.ex;jeci:ii:io’i:–s; and effective relief to the Victims of

V”l.._the«n’_iotOi:”V'{ic<:i(lents or the legal representatives

off 'i,I1e~" pc:".:~"e1is who are killed in such


13, ‘i”lic- Division Bench making this

‘A reference felt that while making the abovesaid

. .


suggestions the question as to whether an
application (ran be filed in a disposed of petition

and in some cases modified in appeal and the}

remedy of a tort–feasor who has satisfied….tpheg’:’*:2.

award. but. who does not know the parti.«ci1la.rs’

of the other vehicle which was respo1isib.l:ejfo’rl:
the acciciem. It is well settleclthaté pro’v_is’ions
the Motor Vehicries Act regarding;’establishrrient it
of Claim:~; ‘l’1’ibunal’ll__g”‘tQ. deteVrmi_r1e._v A
cornpensaléoh to the of’ legal
I’€pl’€S€l1{2l§1-V655 of .__the lcleoeatzellfi” – ._ in at Hlrhotor
Vehicle ameident a Speedy
and CXp€?(‘lf~f’iOL1S v_f£)’}’–‘.v,1._I”I:’1w topgthel’.’C*.lafiiiE1r1ts. The
object of ‘1’i[,:l:f?:y:.a(‘.t;:h.E1S bee’1’l:en.hm_erated by the
Supiwgrrhel’ liri-:_i.1rii~1’ed”_ lhdia ‘ Insurance Co.

Ltd. ‘l’:§::?v§”i.iv:LVl:’iV'(2’Q03.] 3 sec 338: (AIR 2003 so

i”i’;ll’if;*.i2″§_é’.’.*.~”V’il-b ‘2. it

c’s::c1e1*’A.t.oi.;:iefine the intention of the

_;j ‘legi.siat:ufc.. Vthe..cou’rse of interpretation of the

‘rel’evaIht. ;’>1’visions, there can scarcely be a

{‘:~.é.l1an that of probing into the motive

” aganci bff3h’i;;§€V>?r;()}I)1′}}»’ of the relevant provisions

kc;-;epi.u.;; is’; :’111’1’1(§ the goals to be achieved by

enaltiigig the same. Ordinarily it is not the

A «._cor1<:erh of the Eegislature whether the owner of

"the \=-'t?hi("'l:' ii1SI,.E.I'€S his vehicle or not. If the

vehicle is 110:. insured any legal liability arising

(ax); 5"'/~"""'£""'


on 'c1('('Ot.1:ai of third party risk will have to be
borne by l§'h" owner of the vehicle. Why then has

the l6glSlz1§_i.Ii't' insisted on a person using a_.-.__
motor ve§n'e;'le in a public place to insure against;
third part}; risk by enacting Section 94'?
the olaligation has not been imposed in or«d__er.to.: ll"
promote the business of the in"snrers
the bi.1si1'1z:-Ts of the .traxzelling~–rin”‘
Vehicles or using the .r_oad_s -.._frorIt’ rthie
attendant upon L18-fer of l1n_o.to’1*..VehiCleslA on
the I’0a1:§1:.(:rl-‘i;_ protection would remain a

4;: lp1o.t:e<.'1io'n..ori paper unless there is a guarantee

"t1ia:.. I'1li1e <'<';:'1'apensation awarded by the Courts

vw'o4uiicl"vt.§je~-.recoverable from the persons held

l"=gliabEe~–_foi:"él'1<'% mnseqiiences of the accident. A

Cot1'rij foam i_}§3.§}-' pass an award or a decree. It

Carmot (-=2'::<.a:i'<: that such an award or decree

A '*-…_results in i.'%'a.e amount awarded being actually

"recovered frorii the person held liable who may

not hzwv the resources. The exercise


unciertakt-"xi by the Iaw Courts would then be an H
exercise in i'ui;i1it.y. And the outcome of the legalh
pI'O(T@€di1i;{S which by the very nature of ''
invoive the 'time cost and money cost inyesteti
from the -'€(.'E'd'CTtT resources ofmthe CGrr1iI1fin.ity.:
wouid nizikc a mockery of the i' V
or the d('fg}<"l1dE-lliis of the deceased'/ictini .of*the it '
accident. who 1he1nse1yes'=~are oflbligeri
not i'ncoi'isitie1'ai3ie expentiiture_Vof 'Inoney
and €3I1€1.'f.E}' in l1'1'iyg"a~!.ion.'f'"N' it it
W'1-ii-*:.=;_ the opioioriiiris between for a
View vvh:i"<':'i'i"'y;xy2yf:.il1 1'e1ieVe'i"the"t:iistres.s5and misery
of t1'1e'o'r; their dependants
on__i_§Vyie""o.1i£;'i ii-..:a_1i_t.i ai'2d?ihe..equally plausible View
Vihi('1"1'Ai?\i'ii§_~.i"§:§i't1Vt"€'«E158_pI"Ofitability of the insurer
'r'egzV'i:*:'i: occupational hazard

ufldtgrffithzfii V§3yVi:.iri'ii,hy way of business activity,

'4;:'tl"V1e.1.'c'. is i'3i;-2.;-g'iiy an choice. The Court cannot but

opt i'or..«ih:;- :'¢'i'~;i:er view. Even if one were to

f~ir–::"i<r'i.1},.;' docirinaire approach, the very

i"-._sai1'1£5:";»r;<)'i;{4iiissiori would emerge in obeisance to

the'cio–t'é::'i:ic: oi' 'reading down' the exclusion

claui-..5e {:2 Eht" Eight of the 'main purpose'

A'ii'~…yhigi1iighiv<.i cariier. The effort must be to

":1'lEll'1'11OI]iI2".i." i'E"§(-' two instead of aiiowirlg the

j i


exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the H
main pu:’pse.” ‘
XXX ». V
it 1’m~<'1 not be pointed out that the_.A"vL*hoie'

concept oi" §_{etting the Vehicie an
Insu1fanc»;:= Corripany is to e'asy'Arnode».,v" V
of ggettin;-.3 compensation Claimants, it '
otherwise in normal co:i.rse:.they'vhad.tot'
their claim against. the ownet'from one
other and 11§tin1a'tc.E_y execiitetjéthe-._order'of the
Accidents-; ("'3 laimsta' foe ¢:h'2*§:Lag;¢/,ation of
such an1:.zt’s’_11. by sa-E~e.._o:f pvroperties owner

‘ The piroctedurie*anrI….§’esult of the

of the ve; ‘
exec tttio 1 j: ‘i’.”‘I2€;’__ de’t’t:§Tit5″»Ii£1fI1€ of other joint tort-
feasso1*._< not ..1{V1Ai_()i?V'.1;}'–.~,1' the oniy joint tort–feasor

_; o'n,reco1'fri::.. vtbcinnd to pay the compensation
€'aWa.rdie.c&i 2:; iihetiiciaiinant and the question of
'v§11;)}at)'f:{i£3A:i:'§s;E.ia'£'E'{ of biameworthiness in the

" -.__'abs<.9'11r:e";;;s§"that joins" t0rt–feas0r does not arise."

'I'he.1'ei'or<: we» cannot accept the submission of learned

A ..fCoi1nse1 fox' 1n:~;2a2.";::1(:e Company. E I
.. E (4:&AA_w_5;4_V. ('/€p\ :


Regarding quantum of eompensation:–

8. The Tribunal to determine compensation under the
head “loss oi’ dependency” has rightly determ1’neld”»o the

multiplier and the multipheand. The Tribunal

compensation of Rs.68.000/– under conventional.’ b

Tribunal has awarded eompens.ation:A’
claimants i to 4 under the head “lo4sS’of_Alove affeet:lo11l’l.l’–
Therefore. we 1’e-assess the eoiiipensation
COI1V€I’ll’,iO}’l£ill1€:’,adS as vfollows:’:–l””’ . l l l
Clai:1′}.am.s are entitle.d’toi~ of Rs. 10,000/–

under the iieeuifflgoss of; 15,000/~ under

the headlllli’l’u1:{;l-;1fa1 &._transportation charges” and
Rs.20,0l0Q}’ ui ;dei2’tl1e°l1ead.Ffloss to estate”.

9. Ini;}1(-* ‘1’esu1t.Ax.ybe”p’ass the following-

” _____ _. – ORDER

‘ ” j”i*l14éi*a1;;;3:l{“a.l is accepted in part. The impugned award is

n’1o.ciil;ied.l ll~.VTfit74ii-‘ll3ensaE”ion of Rs.4~,52,000/– awarded by

‘V Tribtinalv.;s.V1~eciuced to Rs.ai.29,000/–. The said amount shall

.,ca1’ryz1ntle1~esl. at 6% per annum from the date of petition till

— the’ date of irzilisation. The rest of the impugned award is

m 5%” ‘{‘”‘~* ir

confirmed. If the Insurance Company has deposited the

amount in excess of what has been awarded in this appeal

the same shali be refunded to Insurance Company. ‘7’

are direcied in bear their costs. Office i$mdirecteC£””tciisftfid.

back records aiong with a mpy of this oreler. A. 3

L % 391/…



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information